WASHINGTON — Young Black lawyers and law students are taking on a new role ahead of the general election: Meeting with Black voters in battleground states to increase turnout and serve as watchdogs against voter disenfranchisement. The Young Black Lawyers' Organizing Coalition has recruited lawyers and law students and is sending them to Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas to meet with Black voters, aiming to better understand the barriers that the historically disadvantaged voting bloc faces when registering to vote and accessing the ballot. The recruits are leading educational focus groups with an ambitious goal: restoring fatigued Black voters' faith in American democracy. "I think what makes us unique is that we're new messengers," said Abdul Dosunmu, a civil rights lawyer who founded YBLOC. "We have never thought about the Black lawyer as someone who is uniquely empowered to be messengers for civic empowerment." Dosunmu, who shared the coalition's plans exclusively with The Associated Press, said recruits will combat apathy among Black voters by listening, rather than telling them why their participation is crucial. The focus groups will inform "a blueprint for how to make democracy work for our communities," he said. According to a Pew Research Center report, in 2023, just 21% of Black adults said they trust the federal government to do the right thing at least most of the time. That's up from a low of 9% during the Trump administration. For white adults, the numbers were reversed: 26% of white adults expressed such trust in 2020, dropping to 13% during the Biden administration. The first stop on the four-state focus group tour was Michigan in February. This month, YBLOC plans to stop in Texas and then North Carolina. Venues for the focus groups have included barbershops, churches and union halls. Alyssa Whitaker, a third-year student at Howard University School of Law, said she got involved because she is dissatisfied with the relationship Black communities have with their democracy. "Attorneys, we know the law," Whitaker said. "We've been studying this stuff and we're deep in the weeds. So, having that type of knowledge and expertise, I do believe there is some level of a responsibility to get involved." In Detroit, Grand Rapids and Pontiac, Michigan, the recruits heard about a wide variety of challenges and grievances. Black voters said they don't feel heard or validated and are exasperated over the lack of options on the ballot. Despite their fatigue, the voters said they remain invested in the political process. "It was great to see that, even if people were a bit more pessimistic in their views, people were very engaged and very knowledgeable about what they were voting for," said another recruit, Awa Nyambi, a third-year student at Howard University School of Law. It's a shame that ever since Black people were guaranteed the right to vote, they've had to pick "the lesser of two evils" on their ballots, said Tameka Ramsey, interim executive director of the Michigan Coalition on Black Civic Participation. "But that's so old," said Ramsey, whose group was inspired by the February event and has begun holding its own listening sessions. These young lawyers are proving the importance of actually listening to varying opinions in the Black community, said Felicia Davis, founder of the HBCU Green Fund, a non-profit organization aimed at driving social justice and supporting sustainable infrastructure for historically Black colleges and universities. YBLOC is "teaching and reawakening the elements of organizing 101," she said. The experience also is informing how the lawyers navigate their careers, said Tyra Beck, a second-year student at The New York University School of Law. "It's personal to me because I'm currently in a constitutional law class," Beck said. Kahaari Kenyatta, a first-year student also at The New York University School of Law, said the experience has reminded him why he got into law. "You care about this democracy and civil engagement," Kenyatta said. "I'm excited to work with YBLOC again, whatever that looks like."

Two Republican congressmen introduced a bill Wednesday that would provide the NCAA, college conferences and member schools with federal protection from legal challenges that stand in the way of their ability to govern college sports. The Protect the Ball Act is sponsored by Reps. Russell Fry of South Carolina and Barry Moore of Alabama and is intended to provide legal safe harbor for the entities that run college sports, which has been under siege from antitrust lawsuits. Fry and Moore are members of the House Judiciary Committee. The NCAA and Power Four conferences are considering a settlement agreement that could cost billions. House vs. the NCAA seeks damages for college athletes who were denied the right to make money from sponsorship and endorsement deals going back to 2016, five years before the NCAA lifted its ban on name, image and likeness compensation. Almost as problematic for the NCAA are recent lawsuits filed by states that attack some of the association's most basic rules related to recruiting inducements and multiple-time transfers. The Protect the Ball Act would give the NCAA protection from litigation and allow the association and conferences to regulate things like recruiting, eligibility standards and the way college athletes are compensated for name, image and likeness. "NIL rules are ever-changing, heavily litigated and essentially unenforceable — causing confusion and chaos for everyone involved," Fry said. "We must establish a liability shield on the national level to protect schools, student-athletes and conferences as they navigate this new set of circumstances. This legislation is an integral component of saving college sports as we know it." College sports leaders have been asking Congress for several years for help in regulating how athletes can be paid for NIL, though NCAA President Charlie Baker and others have shifted the emphasis recently to preventing college athletes from being deemed employees. The lawsuit settlement being considered would create a revenue-sharing system for college athletes, but the NCAA and conferences would still need help from federal lawmakers to shield them from future lawsuits and possibly to create a special status for college athletes. "It is imperative we reach a uniform standard of rules around competition soon and I'm really pleased to see that our congressional engagement efforts are being heard and action is being taken," said former Oklahoma State softball player Morgyn Wynne, who has served as co-chair of the NCAA's Student-Athlete Advisory Committee. At least seven bills have been introduced — some merely as discussion drafts — by lawmakers in both the House and Senate since 2020, but none has gained any traction. The Protect the Ball Act is a narrow bill intended to support broader legislation that would create a national standard for NIL compensation in college sports.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. Kevin J. McMahon Trinity College It almost sounds like a bad joke: What did the 78-year-old male senator say to the 69-year-old female justice? "Retire!" That's effectively what happened recently when U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D.Conn., suggested that Sonia Sotomayor — the first Hispanic and third female Supreme Court justice — retire so that President Joe Biden could appoint a younger and presumably healthier replacement. Blumenthal is not alone. Fearing a repeat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death in September 2020 — just weeks before Election Day — progressives such as Josh Barro, Mehdi Hasan and Nate Silver want to ensure that if Donald Trump does defeat Biden in November, he would not have another opportunity to replace a departed liberal justice with a young conservative ideologue. If Sotomayor is indeed ill, she could justifiably choose to retire. But such calls are not clear-eyed assessments of the justice's health. Blumenthal and the progressive columnists calling for Sotomayor's retirement aren't medical doctors who have reviewed the justice's records. Instead, in my view as a political scientist who studies the Supreme Court, these calls are gimmicks really designed to keep a seat on the Supreme Court in the hands of a liberal justice. Long tenure is a problem Don't get me wrong. As I write in my new book, "A Supreme Court Unlike Any Other: The Deepening Divide Between the Justices and the People," the increasingly long tenure of justices is a serious problem for American democracy. The confirmation of younger justices who stay far longer than they once did prevents the court's membership from changing organically. Consider, for example, a hypothetical I pose in my book. Justice Clarence Thomas once said that he intends to serve until he is 86 years old because, as he put it, "The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years, and I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years." If Thomas, who at 75 is the oldest sitting justice, is able to fulfill that promise and no younger justice leaves the court before him, the U.S. would not see another vacancy until 2034. A court unchanged for 12 years would be unprecedented in American history. This is just one of the factors that has deepened the "democracy gap" between the justices and the people, which I define in the book as "the distance between the court and the electoral processes that endow it with democratic legitimacy." Some reforms would prevent justices from remaining on the high bench for three-plus decades, on average. But publicly requesting an ideologically aligned justice to retire isn't one of them. It isn't likely to work, and in the case of Sotomayor, it has been viewed as sexist. Perhaps more importantly, it misses the point. Win elections, shape the court When it comes to the Supreme Court, progressives are now in the position where conservatives found themselves for many years. They're on the outside looking in. Instead of advancing gimmicks that are unlikely to work, progressives could take a page from the playbook of conservatives who learned from liberals of the previous era: Take the argument to the people. Winning on Election Day is the best path for any party to remake the court. Recall how the conservatives came to dominate the court. In election after election, Republican presidential nominees rallied conservative voters to the polls by critiquing the court's most politically divisive decisions, such as Roe v. Wade, and promising a different type of justice if given the opportunity to fill a seat. Democrats often stayed silent about the Supreme Court during these campaigns, preferring to motivate voters to the polls with other issues. A 2016 exit poll question asked respondents about the importance of Supreme Court appointments in determining their vote for president. Twenty-one percent answered that it was "the" most important issue for them. And significantly, 56% of that 21% supported Trump, 15 percentage points more than those who backed Hillary Clinton. In fact, when Trump named Neil Gorsuch as his first high court nominee mere days after his presidential inauguration, he highlighted this data, saying that "millions of voters" had supported him based on his promise to appoint conservatives to the court. Voters are key Progressives have already shown that the politically astute response to the conservative Supreme Court and its decisions isn't to go after one of their own. It is to take advantage of the great distaste many Americans have toward some of the court's decisions, particularly its 2022 Dobbs ruling uprooting Roe. Just weeks after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, Kansans overwhelmingly rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have denied women a right to obtain an abortion in their state. In the 2022 midterm elections, the expected red wave turned into a ripple as Democrats highlighted the abortion issue. And as the 2024 campaign season heats up, Democrats are primed to highlight their pro-Roe views to rally voters to the polls. History shows that parties can win elections after losing the Supreme Court. Those parties have done so by strategically focusing on convincing voters to support them, not persuading justices to retire. This article is republished from The Conversation.